R-390A receiver (1984 - serial #2)
Ted
Spam Trap
> eBay: http://easyurl.net/R390A
"eBay users may not post on Usenet groups (Internet newsgroups) to
advertise eBay or an eBay listing that is inappropriate or violates
the Usenet board policy. If Usenet abuse is reported to eBay, we may
among other remedies remove the listing, issue a warning, or suspend
the user's eBay account."
-- http://pages.ebay.com/help/welcome/usenet-policy.html
RHF
Spam Trap - You are right this Item should have been posted to
"Rec.Radio.Swap" with a "FA" {For Auction} at the start of the
Subject Line so that readers will know that this was in-fact an
Item For Sale {For Auction}.
FA - R-390A Receiver (1984 - Serial #2)
eBay: http://easyurl.net/R390A
Actually to be honest and correct the eBay Seller should
have Posted eBay Auction Listing for this Item reads:
FOWLER INDUSTRIES, R-390A,
SERIAL#2, RAREST EVER MADE
eBay Item Number: 220132158407
http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ220132158407
But then, since this is a 'Rare' Fowler Industries R-390A
with a very low Serial Number "#2" : The eBay Seller
did feel that other "Rec.Radio" NewsGroup may have been
interested in this R-390A. Such as :
Rec.Radio.Shortwave,
Rec.Radio.Amateur.Equipment,
Rec.Radio.Amateur.Boatanchors
Why I myself did not know that some R-390As were build
by Fowler Industries. Plus the eBay Auction "Description"
itself is a very interesting and informative read about this
"Rare' R-390A Receiver. I would even say to others that
-if- you were unaware of the Fowler Industries R-390A
Receivers and you have an interest in old R-390A Receivers;
you should take the time to read this eBay Auction
'Description' for the information that it presents.
http://www.ia.net/~wbsorsby/N5BU/R390/r390.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_Collins
The R390A/URR webpages on the WWW
http://www.r390a.com/
http://www.radioera.com/mall/RareMINTCollinsBuiltR390A.asp
http://r-390a.us/
The R-390A Frequently Asked Questions Page
http://www.r-390a.net/faq-overview.htm
NOTICE - BE ADVISED :
This is NOT my Auction and I am NOT Associated with the eBay Seller.
.
PLEASE NOTE - FWIW :
That this Message is being Posted for Informational Purposes Only.
- - - It was simply an Interesting 'Rare' R-390A ReceiverAntenna - -
-
.
KNOW YOUR SELLER and something about what they are Selling.
As Always - Buyer Beware - Life is a Gamble and so is eBay.
.
Once Again "Spam Trap" thank you for informing us of the
eBay Users Ban on Posting to Usenet Groups (Internet
Newsgroups) to inform the Readers of those Groups about
a possible Item of Interest to them that was 'topical' for that
NewsGroup. Now had the original poster {Spammer ?}
posted a Waring Bleander for sale to a Radio Newsgroup :
Clearly that would have been Spam. But a 'Rare' R-390A
Receiver made by Fowler Industries . . . I just don't know
if that is 'inappropriate' or 'violates' the 'Usenet Policy'
{Rules} for the above identified NewsGroups.
.
.
probing the air waves with my radios on
and my antennas up ~ RHF
.
.
. .
druid
"Ted" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:a0b2ba60aec6ca3e...@pseudo.borked.net...
> eBay: http://easyurl.net/R390A
>
WHAT A LOAD OF JUNK some guys will buy anything, I bet a trusty YB400 would
blow it away
I wouldn't give 5 bucks for that rubbish
druid
Randy or Sherry Guttery
> I bet a trusty YB400 would
> blow it away
What is a YB400?
best regards...
--
randy guttery
A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews
so vital to the United States Silent Service:
http://tendertale.com
Brenda Ann
"Randy or Sherry Guttery" <comc...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:pS9oi.437$lX....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
> druid wrote:
>
>> I bet a trusty YB400 would blow it away
>
> What is a YB400?
>
> best regards...
> --
Grundig Yacht Boy 400 (or 400PE). Nice little radio to carry in your purse
or luggage, but doesn't begin to touch an R-390 for performance (but then,
an R-390 doesn't run on 4 AA batteries).
Roadie
> On Jul 20, 7:47 am, Spam Trap <bit-buc...@config.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:40:10 -0600 (MDT), Ted wrote:
> > > eBay:http://easyurl.net/R390A
>
> > "eBay users may not post on Usenet groups (Internet newsgroups) to
> > advertise eBay or an eBay listing that is inappropriate or violates
> > the Usenet board policy. If Usenet abuse is reported to eBay, we may
> > among other remedies remove the listing, issue a warning, or suspend
> > the user's eBay account."
> > -- http://pages.ebay.com/help/welcome/usenet-policy.html
>
> Spam Trap - You are right this Item should have been posted to
> "Rec.Radio.Swap" with a "FA" {For Auction} at the start of the
> Subject Line so that readers will know that this was in-fact an
> Item For Sale {For Auction}.
>
> FA - R-390A Receiver (1984 - Serial #2)
> eBay:http://easyurl.net/R390A
>
> Actually to be honest and correct the eBay Seller should
> have Posted eBay Auction Listing for this Item reads:
> FOWLER INDUSTRIES, R-390A,
> SERIAL#2, RAREST EVER MADE
>
> But then, since this is a 'Rare' Fowler Industries R-390A
> with a very low Serial Number "#2" : The eBay Seller
> did feel that other "Rec.Radio" NewsGroup may have been
> interested in this R-390A. Such as :
> Rec.Radio.Shortwave,
> Rec.Radio.Amateur.Equipment,
> Rec.Radio.Amateur.Boatanchors
>
> Why I myself did not know that some R-390As were build
> by Fowler Industries. Plus the eBay Auction "Description"
> itself is a very interesting and informative read about this
> "Rare' R-390A Receiver. I would even say to others that
> -if- you were unaware of the Fowler Industries R-390A
> Receivers and you have an interest in old R-390A Receivers;
> you should take the time to read this eBay Auction
>
> The R390A/URR webpages on the WWWhttp://www.r390a.com/http://www.radioera.com/mall/RareMINTCollinsBuiltR390A.asphttp://r-390a.us/
>
> The R-390A Frequently Asked Questions Pagehttp://www.r-390a.net/faq-overview.htm
Out of curiosity is there a difference between a Fowler manufactured
R390A and one made by another company in 1984?
Paul E. Cater
ago than I would like to admit and I never heard of "Fowler Industries".
Nice piece of history but agree that it should not have been posted in
several of these groups for sale. As they say, there is a proper place
for all the stuff for sale let alone ebay's rules and policies.
On a side note, I did notice a few posts stating these receivers in
general were "junk". It all depends on your perspective. The
sensitivity, when properly aligned, is still competitive with more
modern equipment. If one were to set their new ((rig) (insert your
favorite brand named, DSP, Solid state, processed, ET. here))next to a
R-390 and exposed both to one hell of a EMP, which one do you think has
a chance to still work?
Not that this was in the original design specifications but the R-390
has also stopped many a bullet or shrapnel for ripping an op in two.
To reiterate, it is all a matter of perspective kind of like relativity.
Regards,
Paul WD8OSU
RHF
Druid,
With 24 Bids place by 9 separate Bidders and a
current Auction Price of $2710; at lease a few
Radio Collectors view this Fowlerr R-390A Receiver
as a valuable item.
on ebay - one man's junk is another man's treasure
-or- headache as case may be ~ RHF
.
.
. .
Chuck Harris
> Out of curiosity is there a difference between a Fowler manufactured
> R390A and one made by another company in 1984?
>
ISTR reading one of the R390A sites that said the Fowler unit
was built from refurbished surplus R390A parts (EAC).
As I recall, the Navy burped up a need for a couple of more R390A units
for some reason or another, and put out a RFQ. Fowler won the bid.
Or maybe I am fantasizing?
-Chuck
Ron in Radio Heaven
> Out of curiosity is there a difference between a Fowler manufactured
> R390A and one made by another company in 1984?
>
There were no other R390As made by anyone else in 1984.
Ron
Scott Dorsey
> "Ted" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>
> news:a0b2ba60aec6ca3e...@pseudo.borked.net...
>
> > eBay:http://easyurl.net/R390A
>
> WHAT A LOAD OF JUNK some guys will buy anything, I bet a trusty YB400 would
> blow it away
Actually, the 390A is a pretty good performer. Sensitivity isn't a whole
lot better than the Yacht Boy cheapies, but the front end noise floor
is better, and the selectivity is amazingly better. The selectivity for
SSB and CW on the R-390A is really something you have to try to believe.
Oh yes, and the front end of the R-390A won't overload. Not even with
a local transmitter on the same channel. The Yacht Boy overloads if you
look at it too hard.
The bad news is that the audio quality stinks, in part due to the really
sharp skirt of the filters that make it so selective and in part due to
power amp design. So you might prefer the Yacht Boy if audio quality is
more important than DX ability.
A couple years ago I did an A/B test between the R-390A and the current
generation DSP-based Watkins-Johnson military surveillance receivers.
The weak signal performance was about the same for CW, although the
fancy detector on the W-J was a little bit better at dealing with weak
SSB signals. The digital panadaptor with the automatic signal ID on
the W-J was really slick, though.... I think the W-J was a winner for
ergonomics.
I wouldn't want to try and repair that R-390A, though. It's a mechanical
nightmare. On the other hand, I don't think I'd want to repair that W-J
either.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Unrevealed Source
You see 390As made by various manufacturers - Motorola, EAC, of course
Collins themselves, and now this Fowler. Any opinions on who made them the
best? Any real differences between them?
Randy or Sherry Guttery
> On Jul 20, 2:13 pm, "druid" <dr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>"Ted" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>>
>>news:a0b2ba60aec6ca3e...@pseudo.borked.net...
>>
>>
>>>eBay:http://easyurl.net/R390A
>>
>>WHAT A LOAD OF JUNK some guys will buy anything, I bet a trusty YB400 would
>>blow it away
>
>
> Actually, the 390A is a pretty good performer. Sensitivity isn't a whole
> lot better than the Yacht Boy cheapies,
Yacht Boy can get into the sub .1 microvolt sensitivity level (10db
S+N/N)? That's pretty impressive for a solid-state receiver... usually
noise floor is a problem down below .1uv... Chuck Rippel has some that
can get into the .07 - .08uv 10db s+n/n I'm not patient enough to groom
mine that well.
> The bad news is that the audio quality stinks, in part due to the really
> sharp skirt of the filters that make it so selective and in part due to
> power amp design.
True, but...
So you might prefer the Yacht Boy if audio quality is
> more important than DX ability.
There's precious little (IMHO) worth listening to on SW(AM) DX these
days - and audio quality isn't too important when digging an RTTY signal
out of the chaos that is propaganda and religious broadcasters these
days...
> A couple years ago I did an A/B test between the R-390A and the current
> generation DSP-based Watkins-Johnson military surveillance receivers.
> The weak signal performance was about the same for CW, although the
> fancy detector on the W-J was a little bit better at dealing with weak
> SSB signals. The digital panadaptor with the automatic signal ID on
> the W-J was really slick, though.... I think the W-J was a winner for
> ergonomics.
To get peak performance with a 390/1/A - consider using a Sherwood
synchronous detector, or similar...
For a "head to head" run of a Drake R8 and R8A; a pair of
Watkins-Johnson HF-1000's, an R388, R390A and a JRC NRD-535 against an
R390A with a Sherwood - see this:
<http://r390a.com/html/history.htm>
> I wouldn't want to try and repair that R-390A, though. It's a mechanical
> nightmare.
Once you get used to them - they're VERY easy to work on - admittedly -
the geartrains can be a bit intimidating at first - but after a while -
you get to don't even think about them... Of course with the 390/391 -
you do learn to NEVER forget the green gear - it only takes once - and
you remember from then on.
Sherry's 391 with it's power autotune - yeah - those tuning heads still
give me pause - but Sherry just shrugs and jumps right into them - since
she likes to keep them very clean and well lubed. (replacement parts are
getting harder and harder to find - so it pays to prevent damage).
> On the other hand, I don't think I'd want to repair that W-J
> either.
This old dog is getting too old to learn new tricks... besides most of
these new-fangled radios are more like sitting at this computer... no
warm glow, no power geartrains slewing at break-neck speeds going from
one preset to another... and certainly not the smell and sound of a 28
in the room... naw - give me my boatanchors (and it's probably
appropriate to apologize to those in r.r.s and r.a.a.e groups - I
didn't notice this was cross posted --- but since we're all on the
subject - I'll leave it cross posted for now)...
My 390A is pretty stock - and as noted - just an average performer.
Sherry cheats - she "usually" runs an R390A IF in her 391 for DXing,
etc. -- though she can drop the stock 391 IF back in - in about a minute
- when she wants to show off broadcast stuff (i.e. the 390A IF she uses
is the only thing modified - it'd have to be "returned to stock" to go
back in an "A")...
Randy or Sherry Guttery
> Which brings up the question:
>
> You see 390As made by various manufacturers - Motorola, EAC, of course
> Collins themselves, and now this Fowler. Any opinions on who made them the
> best? Any real differences between them?
You left out Helena-Rubenstien (yes the makeup people) --- though it's
usually suggested that though they "took that specific contract
(believed to be 80 radios) - they subcontracted one of the regulars to
build the radios. Stewart Warner is suspected - since they had the
contracts on "both sides" of the H-R contract... are were obviously in
a position to build them much less expensively than most anyone else at
the time.
back to your question - I'm sure there are those who nit-pick this
detail or that detail - but in working with these radios over the past
35 years (and probably 100+ different radios both aboard ship and
otherwise) - much of the time I have to look at the tag to see who built
it - and even then - after being in the fleet for any length of time -
there'll be a "mix" of modules in the radio from any number of sources.
Many I worked on were Stewart Warners - which as often as not had
several Capehart modules in it -- as does my current 390A - though I
suspect from a couple of things the frame itself started out as a
Capehart and had it's tag "swapped". That's not as uncommon as you'd
think - sometimes it'd be easier to fix a radio by sliding another one
in it's place - changing the tag so the "boss" didn't notice. I've been
told this was rather common at some shore stations where people were
more interested in "hitting the beach" than "hitting that dog"...
One of the great strengths of the Collins design - is that it is truly
modular - the modules aren't dependent on a neighbor to work to it's
best (i.e. there is almost no interaction of alignment / adjustment
between modules. A module that works in one radio - will work just as
well (in it's own right) in another radio. Obviously - an improperly
working module will effect the radio's overall performance - but
properly working modules can be shuffled like a deck of cards - and
still work just fine - regardless of the "new neighbor".
like all things subjective - just my .02
Paul E. Cater
meet the original design specs/requirements.
I noticed a reference to sensitivity being .1 uV and I can tell you that
if I worked on one that was in that range I started looking about to see
what was wrong with it! While working on several banks of the silly
things, .0 something uV was the norm. I'm not saying that was the
minimum specs that were required as I can't remember just that they very
often exceeded them.
They were a mechanical nightmare and a bad thing if you were waring a
tie while aligning them. During an inspection, by an admiral no less,
one of my techs was aligning one and got his dress tie caught in the
gears. When the admiral walked in an "attention on deck" was yelled out
and this poor kid had a receiver hanging off his neck! It don't take
long for 60 or so pounds to suck you to the floor in that type
situation. The admiral was very understanding and although he didn't
offer to help the kid we all ended up going out on a relatively large
drunk.
But, still a nice, heavy, old, receiver.
Paul
WD8OSU
Randy or Sherry Guttery
> Shut the hell up.
Aw, come on - we all have to learn - why not try mentoring rather than
slamming? Then if someone insists on continuing to be a jerk - we can
pile on without guilt!
retiring to the corner...
Roadie
That's complete nonsense and I'm sure you know it.
Randy or Sherry Guttery
> I noticed a reference to sensitivity being .1 uV and I can tell you that
> if I worked on one that was in that range I started looking about to see
> what was wrong with it!
I threw that number out as a point of comparison... as any 390/1/A
should perform that well as a minimum.
> While working on several banks of the silly
> things,
After working on "several banks" -- the one has to wonder - if it wasn't
the tech that was getting "silly" (if not punch-drunk!)... ;-)
> .0 something uV was the norm. I'm not saying that was the
> minimum specs that were required as I can't remember just that they very
> often exceeded them.
The specs - and the way the specs were obtained - left a lot of "wiggle
room". That's why the generally accepted measurment is made with the
radio set to some specific settings - which generally produced the most
"recoverable" signal - and that's using the 4 kc filter and standard AM
detection; signal generator at 30% modulation with 10db S+N/N recovery.
Otherwise - without knowing what the "settings" were - (and they varied
depending on what tech manual you happen to have) - everyone would be
comparing apples to oranges - rather than apples to apples.
Obviously - using a wider filter; bfo to detect carrier (or carrier
re-insertion on SSB) would allow for detection WAY down into the noise
(.06 or better). .07-.08 using the above settings (4K, AM, no BFO, 30%
modulation) is akin to pulling a 20 pound rabbit out of an egg cup -
pretty cotton-pickin' good!
> They were a mechanical nightmare and a bad thing if you were waring a
> tie while aligning them. During an inspection, by an admiral no less,
> one of my techs was aligning one and got his dress tie caught in the
> gears.
What in the name of Neptunus Rex was somebody working on a 390 IN A TIE
for?
> When the admiral walked in an "attention on deck" was yelled out
> and this poor kid had a receiver hanging off his neck! It don't take
> long for 60 or so pounds to suck you to the floor in that type
> situation.
Uh, yeah - about 2 seconds - splat! what a hoot!
best regards...
Brian Hill
"Randy or Sherry Guttery" <comc...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:pS9oi.437$lX....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
Thats called a radio troll.
--
Regards
B.H.
Hill Amplification
http://webpages.charter.net/brianhill/hillamplification.htm
Brian Hill
You cant mentor a troll
Randy or Sherry Guttery
> You cant mentor a troll
So we heap a pile of dung on it's head, hang an "I'm an idiot" sign
around it's neck - and send it on it's way...
Tim Shoppa
> I wouldn't want to try and repair that R-390A, though. It's a mechanical
> nightmare.
You'd be surprised how easy it is, Scott. Complete guides to tearing
down and rebuilding even the most complex assemblies (the RF
geartrain, the PTO) are on the web. Mine came from Fair Radio (a "used-
repairable" unit) with essentially sand as the geartrain lubricant, so
I went through most everything.
> On the other hand, I don't think I'd want to repair that W-J either.
My WJ is 25 years old now and holding up pretty well, too, although
I'm sure it would take more than a 100W soldering iron and Bristol
spline wrench to fix if it had anything go wrong in the PLL!
Tim.
Scott Dorsey
>
>To get peak performance with a 390/1/A - consider using a Sherwood
>synchronous detector, or similar...
Please sell me one! I have been looking for one of the synchronous
detector modules for ages!
I'd take a Sherwood, I'd take one of the sheet-beam tube ones.... I
may just consider building one with some of the TV set detector ICs
from RCA...
Scott Dorsey
>Which brings up the question:
>
>You see 390As made by various manufacturers - Motorola, EAC, of course
>Collins themselves, and now this Fowler. Any opinions on who made them the
>best? Any real differences between them?
The only major difference I saw between the things was in the PTO... some
manufacturers seemed to build much better PTO modules than others.
By the time the gear winds up on the ham radio side of the DRMO, though,
most of them have turned into mix and match sets. So the nameplate on the
front may not indicate accurately where all the modules from.
My experience has been to avoid the EAC PTOs. If you find yourself with
a radio with a goofy or flaky PTO, though, Fair Radio has replacements.
Don't worry so much about the rest of it.
Brian Hill
"Randy or Sherry Guttery" <comc...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> So we heap a pile of dung on it's head, hang an "I'm an idiot" sign around
> it's neck - and send it on it's way...
> --
> randy guttery
>
> A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews
> so vital to the United States Silent Service:
> http://tendertale.com
Yep Randy, That's about it.
dxAce
Unrevealed Source wrote:
> Which brings up the question:
>
> You see 390As made by various manufacturers - Motorola, EAC, of course
> Collins themselves, and now this Fowler. Any opinions on who made them the
> best? Any real differences between them?
I'd have to say that this darn thing (along with the other four) must certainly
have been built out of resurrected parts. There is probably no way that a
company is going to gear up, and produce five of these receivers for $38,000
each, for a total cost of $190,000. The costs just wouldn't seem to add up.
Nice receivers though, when well maintained.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Roadie
> Unrevealed Source wrote:
> > Which brings up the question:
>
> > You see 390As made by various manufacturers - Motorola, EAC, of course
> > Collins themselves, and now this Fowler. Any opinions on who made them the
> > best? Any real differences between them?
>
> I'd have to say that this darn thing (along with the other four) must certainly
> have been built out of resurrected parts. There is probably no way that a
> company is going to gear up, and produce five of these receivers for $38,000
> each, for a total cost of $190,000. The costs just wouldn't seem to add up.
The costs would likely add up rapidly for a limited run of a complex
radio like the R390a. The profits would likely not add up at all and
would likely venture into negative territory.
Randy or Sherry Guttery
> The only major difference I saw between the things was in the PTO... some
> manufacturers seemed to build much better PTO modules than others.
> My experience has been to avoid the EAC PTOs. If you find yourself with
> a radio with a goofy or flaky PTO, though, Fair Radio has replacements.
> Don't worry so much about the rest of it.
This is very true - get a Cosmo PTO if you can find one- they seem to be
of better than average quality - IMHO.
So it goes.
H. State
Perhaps you should read the original articles in Electric Radio
Magazine, issues 71 and 72 March and April, 1995 and get the "actual
facts." I know that would be a real stretch for anything on usenet,
but you would get an education along with the other naysayers as to
the "rest of the story."
Harold
dxAce
"H. State" wrote:
And the "rest of the story" is...?
dxAce
Michigan
USA
H. State
This is a small excerpt from a list which has been discussing this
particular item.:
I've been reading the archives with interest concerning the Fowler
R-390A
s/n 2. I no longer subscribe to the list, but several friends told me
of the
activity about this particular R-390A and I wanted to clear up a few
things,
so I subscribed this morning to attempt to do that.
The story about this particular receiver was originally published in
Electric Radio Magazine issue 71 in March, 1995. A close-up photo of
the
nomenclature tag was in issue 72 in April, 1995. That is the "Real
McCoy
Tag" Speculate about made up tags etc. One wasn't made for this
receiver
except when it was built for the U.S. Navy by Fowler Industries.
I know the owner, V ************* who was mentioned in the original
article and it is indeed a "genuine" Fowler and is s/n 2.
T ******** reviewed the pictures of this receiver back in 1995 and
knows
of the validity of this particular receiver, as do several other
people.
T ********* did quite a bit of research with personnel from Fowler
Industries and Avondale Shipyards regarding the five R-390A's built.
That
information was published in subsequent issues of Electric Radio
Magazine.
I don't have the time right now to answer in detail, maybe tomorrow.
T ********* knows much more detail than I do as he spoke with the
former
General Manager at Fowler Industries and purchasing people at Avondale
(now
Northrup Grumman) Shipyards.
They built them using components, but had some difficulty obtaining
certain
components.Fowler: When T ********* spoke with the Plant Manager he
commented that
they had particular problems obtaining JAN tubes, in particular
26Z5W's and
3TF7's. Remember, that they were considered "unobtanium" in the late
80's
early 90's. Then the government released surplus tubes and Fair Radio
was
selling them at reasonable prices (they went quickly).
They potentiometers were made in Mexico, the meters were A & M
Instruments,
the quality of the wafer switches were not as robust as the runs
during the
50's and 60's, Dittmore-Freimuth made the mechanical filters (as they
did on
many later versions), as well as the ones the built themselves, which
were
67 EAC receivers with Dittmore's filters.
I can't say if what they obtained, but can assure you they didn't
purchase
any in the crate R-390A's. Even though they were available at various
locations throughout the country. When you bid on a contract the
Government
lets, you fill the requirements, and they inadvertently left the
R-390A spec
in the bid offering.
Avondale Shipyards probably didn't think to do a search for "in the
crate"
R-390A's and put out a request for bids to build five R-390A's.
Fowler
Industries was Clavier and prior to that Capehart, so they had
experience
building R-390A's and suppling R-390A spare modules (Clavier).
T ********* can pick it up from here, as that is about I can remember
or
verify from back when we did the ER articles.
Signed
L ********
I'm sure you can do additional research, and find someone who has
these articles. I do, but don't care to scan and post them without the
authors permission as they are copyrighted articles.
Harold
dxAce
"H. State" wrote:
Nice. However all I can do is stick with my original assumption. It would be very
difficult to build 5 'totally new' R390A's for a measly $190,000. Even 1984 dollars.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
H. State
Nobody said they built totally new R-390A's. They sold them to the
government for $38,500. They (Fowler Industries) were formerly
Capehart who built R-490A's, and Clavier, who manufactured R-390A
modules for a government spare parts contract. They used "bits and
pieces" to paraphrase, and assembled the R-390A's for that 1984
contract. There is much more to it and I'm not going to waste anymore
time detailing nuances to this group. I just wanted to clear the air
so to speak and inform the uninformed. Usenet has always been a place
to walk the walk, but never talk the talk. I know who you are and you
are a very experienced dx'er. The gentleman who wrote the articles is
a well know archivist/historian.
Different strokes for different folks.
Harold
Harold.
dxAce
"H. State" wrote:
> Nobody said they built totally new R-390A's.
I hate to be overly 'picky', but read what the seller says in his description:
He refers to 'new' in several places.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
dxAce
H. State
Jumping Jesus Christ, you are thick aren't you?
The excerpts from the articles said many of the parts were "new,"
mechanical filters, potentiometers, meters, tubes, etc., etc. They
(Fowler) did manufacture the rear panels and other items. The rear
panels had a "certain" identifying mark on them. Fowler was a defense
contractor that manufactured many other items for the government and
had the capabilities to do so.
Get over it and listen to nibi nibi again, or that heterodyne from
Pitcairn Island.
Harold
dxAce
"H. State" wrote:
> > > They sold them to the
> > > government for $38,500. They (Fowler Industries) were formerly
> > > Capehart who built R-490A's, and Clavier, who manufactured R-390A
> > > modules for a government spare parts contract. They used "bits and
> > > pieces" to paraphrase, and assembled the R-390A's for that 1984
> > > contract. There is much more to it and I'm not going to waste anymore
> > > time detailing nuances to this group. I just wanted to clear the air
> > > so to speak and inform the uninformed. Usenet has always been a place
> > > to walk the walk, but never talk the talk. I know who you are and you
> > > are a very experienced dx'er. The gentleman who wrote the articles is
> > > a well know archivist/historian.
> >
> > > Different strokes for different folks.
> >
> > > Harold
> >
> > > Harold.
>
> Jumping Jesus Christ, you are thick aren't you?
A bit oversensitive, aren't you?
Take your meds, calm down!
> The excerpts from the articles said many of the parts were "new,"
> mechanical filters, potentiometers, meters, tubes, etc., etc. They
> (Fowler) did manufacture the rear panels and other items. The rear
> panels had a "certain" identifying mark on them. Fowler was a defense
> contractor that manufactured many other items for the government and
> had the capabilities to do so.
>
> Get over it and listen to nibi nibi again...
Sorry, I'm not delusional!
> or that heterodyne from
> Pitcairn Island.
You probably get that annoyance on an R-390A.
I prefer to use quality equipment made by R. L. Drake.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Brian Hill
I tend to agree with you Steve. Tooling up to build five completely new
R-390s for $190K would be hard to do. Fowler most certainly had access to
the needed equipment and parts to do the job and that's probably a big part
of why they got the job.
HFguy
> Randy or Sherry Guttery <comc...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>To get peak performance with a 390/1/A - consider using a Sherwood
>>synchronous detector, or similar...
>
>
> Please sell me one! I have been looking for one of the synchronous
> detector modules for ages!
>
> I'd take a Sherwood, I'd take one of the sheet-beam tube ones.... I
> may just consider building one with some of the TV set detector ICs
> from RCA...
> --scott
Contact Pete KE90A on this group. He has plans for a good sync' detector
which he designed for a MW receiver that he was working on for his
electronics employer. Unfortunately the radio didn't go into production.
Brian Hill
"beerbarrel" <beerb...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1185084271.4...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Fix all the spelling errors and you might get someone to take your
> website seriously.
>
> Tracy
>
Ahh shucks Tracy! I'm too busy. How about I pay you to fix em?
BH
Brian Hill
> On Jul 22, 8:31 am, "Brian Hill" <g...@it.net> wrote:
>> "beerbarrel" <beerbar...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Brian,
>
> Do you put the same quality into your amps as you do to your website?
>
> Tracy
>
>
The quality of my amps are top notch. So what exactly is it your referring
to?
BH
Bob Miller
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Nice. However all I can do is stick with my original assumption. It would be very
>difficult to build 5 'totally new' R390A's for a measly $190,000. Even 1984 dollars.
>
>dxAce
>Michigan
>USA
>
parts, a la carte, in quantities of five; machinery to forge the
panels, chassis, etc.; hand labor to solder/screw everything together;
what was hand assembly labor in '84, $10/hr?; test the finished
product & align; and they made a profit on this venture?
I visited the ARC avionics factory in '82, and they were using robots
to assemble their radios, even in those days.
bob
k5qwg
Brian Hill
>
Yep there's a few misspelled words. That really gets under your skin? I bet
you have a hard time finding a doctor you can trust, those guys are worst.
My wife's a transcriptionist at the Mayo her in MN and she's always
complaining about their spelling and grammar.
BH
Zeke Zzzppt
> parts, a la carte, in quantities of five; machinery to forge the
> panels, chassis, etc.; hand labor to solder/screw everything together;
> what was hand assembly labor in '84, $10/hr?; test the finished
> product & align; and they made a profit on this venture?
Sort of makes you wonder if it's possible that they bought 5 or 10 used
(but decent) radios, cleaned them really well, made 5 "good" ones and
put some new decals on a couple of modules and had some new front panel
tags made up.
They should have been able to do that for $38,000 a copy and still turn
a tidy little profit.
cuh...@webtv.net
cuhulin
Brian Hill
> leave. Whatever you decide to do, don't let your wife read your
> website. You will never be able to shut her up.
>
> Tracy
>
Well you'd be surprised who I've done audio and amp work for over the last
20 years and not one ever mentioned a thing about my spelling. My reputation
gets me work, not my spelling. But thanks for caring.
BH
Brian Hill
> recognized, but i'm sure that Big Bird and Elmo are very happy with
> their amps. Good luck Brian....
>
> Tracy
>
The site is only about a month old. You know you're the meanest girl I've
met on usenet in quite some time. Now go play and troll some other poor
bastard.
BH
BH
RHF
We use to get some of this work that had been
"Contracted Out" for New {Old} Stock that had Parts
and Assemblies "Contracted {Back} In". The US
Government Paid for It and then at a very low rate
acted as a sub-contractor and did some of the work
itself. It was my understanding that these Contracts
always Guaranteed the Contractor a Profit. ~ RHF
.
.
. .
tomlr
wrote:
>
>Geez a month? It ought to be perfect in a month! Anyway, goodluck with
>learning how to use spellcheck. I know it's tough but I think you can
>get the hang of it with practice.
>
>Tracy
It's "good luck", not "goodluck". You're not perfect either. Now
shut up and change your tampon.
Brian Hill
> On Jul 23, 11:31 am, tomlr <tomlarou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:15:35 -0700, beerbarrel <beerbar...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Geez a month? It ought to be perfect in a month! Anyway, goodluck with
>> >learning how to use spellcheck. I know it's tough but I think you can
>> >get the hang of it with practice.
>>
>> >Tracy
>>
>> It's "good luck", not "goodluck". You're not perfect either. Now
>> shut up and change your tampon.
>
>
>
How come your such a mean woman? No love? Be nice and it'll happen for ya.
That's my advice.
BH
Don Bowey
<go...@it.net> wrote:
With a name like Beerbarrel "her" only hope is for Popeye's brother.
Brian Hill
> On Jul 23, 12:26 pm, "Brian Hill" <g...@it.net> wrote:
>> "beerbarrel" <beerbar...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> wife. She is such a hottie!
>
Your too stupid to even see how stupid your rally are. Ironically, people
like you always think their brilliant. Good day idiot. LOL!
Your right though, my wife is a hottie.
BH
Don Bowey
1185208875.3...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, "beerbarrel"
<beerb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:37 pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/23/07 9:26 AM, in article SE4pi.33$A_...@newsfe12.lga, "Brian Hill"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <g...@it.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "beerbarrel" <beerbar...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1185207598.2...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jul 23, 11:31 am, tomlr <tomlarou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:15:35 -0700, beerbarrel <beerbar...@cox.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Geez a month? It ought to be perfect in a month! Anyway, goodluck with
>>>>>> learning how to use spellcheck. I know it's tough but I think you can
>>>>>> get the hang of it with practice.
>>
>>>>>> Tracy
>>
>>>>> It's "good luck", not "goodluck". You're not perfect either. Now
>>>>> shut up and change your tampon.
>>
>>>> But damn close!
>>
>>> How come your such a mean woman? No love? Be nice and it'll happen for ya.
>>> That's my advice.
>>
>>> BH
>>
>> With a name like Beerbarrel "her" only hope is for Popeye's brother.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Sorry, I'm a lesbian.
>
Ok! Popeye's sister then.
tomlr
>> >> >> >with
>> >> >> >learning how to use spellcheck. I know it's tough but I think you can
>> >> >> >get the hang of it with practice.
>>
>> >> >> >Tracy
>>
>> >> >> It's "good luck", not "goodluck". You're not perfect either. Now
>> >> >> shut up and change your tampon.
>>
>I'm laughing too! I must be rally stupid! Now I see why you site looks
>like a two year old wrote it.
It's "your site", not "you site". You are a real rocket scientist.
msg
>>
>>>I'm laughing too! I must be rally stupid! Now I see why you site looks
>>>like a two year old wrote it.
>>
>>It's "your site", not "you site". You are a real rocket scientist.
>
>
> That was done on purpose dumbass....I guess it was too far over your
> head to realize it.
>
It is customary to bracket sarcasm with <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags to avoid
misunderstandings ;)
Regards,
Michael
Brian Hill
"beerbarrel" <beerb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> That was done on purpose dumbass....I guess it was too far over your
> head to realize it.
>
Yea right. Don't you get tired of everyone rolling the beerbarrel? You most
certainly are a bona fide rocket scientist. LMFAO!!!
BH
tomlr
wrote:
>On Jul 23, 2:10 pm, tomlr <tomlarou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:10:34 -0700, beerbarrel <beerbar...@cox.net>
>That was done on purpose dumbass....I guess it was too far over your
>head to realize it.
Yes it went over my head. I'm not used to dealing with rocket
scientists who have nothing better to do than pick on some guy who is
trying to run a business and maintain a web site. Go stuff your pie
hole with some doughnuts, Officer Net Cop.
RHF
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:15:35 -0700, beerbarrel <beerbar...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Geez a month? It ought to be perfect in a month! Anyway, goodluck with
> >learning how to use spellcheck. I know it's tough but I think you can
> >get the hang of it with practice.
>
> >Tracy
>
> It's "good luck", not "goodluck". You're not perfect either. Now
> shut up and change your tampon.
atulyincfontxmsgtpnits'gdlk'
Actually in Cellphone Text Message Typing it is 'gdlk'
but have alot of 'good luck' anyway ~ RHF
.
.
PS - Yes I know that it is "a lot" and not 'alot'
but I figured that would bother you too . . .
.
.
. .
cuh...@webtv.net
that big old SUNN Guitar Amp workn?
cuhuln
cuh...@webtv.net
cuhulin
cuh...@webtv.net
much as one red penny for that SUNN Guitar Amp I sent him over a year
ago.
cuhulin
cuh...@webtv.net
cuhulin
Brian Hill
<cuh...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9544-46A...@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net...
> Don't do business with Brian Hill.He will gyp you!
> cuhulin
>
Your a nut case Larry. Plonk!
BH
beerbarrel
> <cuhu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
You are plonking the wrong person Brian...Plonk yourself if you want
to do this group a favor.
beerbarrel
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:21:52 -0700, beerbarrel <beerbar...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 23, 2:10 pm, tomlr <tomlarou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:10:34 -0700, beerbarrel <beerbar...@cox.net>
>
> >> >> >> >> >Geez a month? It ought to be perfect in a month! Anyway, goodluck
> >> >> >> >> >with
> >> >> >> >> >learning how to use spellcheck. I know it's tough but I think you can
> >> >> >> >> >get the hang of it with practice.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Tracy
>
> >> >> >> >> It's "good luck", not "goodluck". You're not perfect either. Now
> >> >> >> >> shut up and change your tampon.
>
> >> >I'm laughing too! I must be rally stupid! Now I see why you site looks
> >> >like a two year old wrote it.
>
> >> It's "your site", not "you site". You are a real rocket scientist.
>
> >That was done on purpose dumbass....I guess it was too far over your
> >head to realize it.
>
> Yes it went over my head.
That was easy to see. I'll bet Bert and Ernie talk over your head too!
beerbarrel
Did you try calling him? Want his phone number?
beerbarrel
> "Ted" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>
> news:a0b2ba60aec6ca3e...@pseudo.borked.net...
>
> > eBay:http://easyurl.net/R390A
>
> WHAT A LOAD OF JUNK some guys will buy anything, I bet a trusty YB400 would
> blow it away
> I wouldn't give 5 bucks for that rubbish
> druid
Do you actually have 5 bucks?
Scott Dorsey
>Paul E. Cater wrote:
>> I noticed a reference to sensitivity being .1 uV and I can tell you that
>> if I worked on one that was in that range I started looking about to see
>> what was wrong with it!
>
>I threw that number out as a point of comparison... as any 390/1/A
>should perform that well as a minimum.
Incidentally, I have an R-390A here that is almost deaf on the lowest
band (.5 -1 MC). All the other bands seem to be just fine. Any suggestion
what the issue might be?
The other interesting thing about this set is that the balanced input seems
to be a problem even with the correct antenna source, but the unbalanced
C-connector input is okay.
Chuck Rippel worked on it and couldn't find a problem, and if HE can't find
a problem...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
cuh...@webtv.net
yet.
cuhulin, nut case, Larry
cuh...@webtv.net
wimmins to flirt around with.
cuhulin
cuh...@webtv.net
cuhulin
cuh...@webtv.net
family lived in Bozeman,Montana.Minnesota is beautifull territory.I
remember that night in Minneapolis when the Greyhound bus stopped at a
traffic light on Nicolette Street (one of those main drags streets in
beautifull down town Minneapolis) and a bunch of people were standing on
the street, waiting on the next movie at that Minneapolis down town
movie theater to open up again.I like Minnesota, I wouldn't live there
though, because I am not from Minnesota and it gets too cold there to
suit me.
cuhulin
Michael A. Terrell
>
> I prefer to use quality equipment made by R. L. Drake.
What equipment would that be?
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Ted
Ted <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
> eBay: http://easyurl.net/R390A
It's baaaaack!
eBay: http://301url.com/R390A_2
Rick (W-A-one-R-K-T)
Geez, what unbelievable hype! :-)
Also. someone needs to tell this guy that you only get so many commas in a
lifetime, and after you use them all up, you die. :-)
From, beautiful, downtown, Londonderry, New, Hampshire...
Rick
dxAce
"Rick (W-A-one-R-K-T)" wrote:
If anyone is interested it's item # 220135666333 up on eBay.
Currently at $7,777.77 with 4 bidders and a bit more than 4 days to go.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Chuck Harris
Yep, as I get older, I am starting to feel comma anemic, so I have had
to cut down to the barest minimum.
-Chuck
Ed
news:uqadnXILIuVQ0ivb...@rcn.net:
Want to perk things up; try semicolons; they make life more
interesting.
Ed K7AAT
pltrgyst
> Want to perk things up; try semicolons; they make life more
>interesting.
Yeah, especially if you don't know how to use them properly.
-- Larry
Ed
>> Want to perk things up; try semicolons; they make life more
>>interesting.
> Yeah, especially if you don't know how to use them properly.
>
> -- Larry
Probably true, My usage wasn't up to good standards, but at least it
was not improper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicolon
Ed
pltrgyst
>>> Want to perk things up; try semicolons; they make life more
>>>interesting.
>
>> Yeah, especially if you don't know how to use them properly.
>
> Probably true, My usage wasn't up to good standards, but at least it
>was not improper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicolon
Of course it was. The second one is fine, but the first one is not. It should be
either a question mark or a comma.
-- Larry
Ed
> Of course it was. The second one is fine, but the first one is not. It
> should be either a question mark or a comma.
>
> -- Larry
>
Oops.. That's what happens in emails, where critical, but unsaid words
and phrased are left off... in this case, "That's"
Ed
Ted
Ted <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
> In article <a0b2ba60aec6ca3e...@pseudo.borked.net>
> Ted <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> >
> > eBay
>
> eBay: http://301url.com/R390A_2
Highest bid $7,877.77 - reserve not met
Deek
Ridiculous, isn't it?